ORDER
K.K. Agarwal, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) enhancing the penalty imposed under Section 76 from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 29,052/-on the ground that the penalty imposed earlier was less than the minimum prescribed under Section 76. The Commissioner (Appeals) also found no justification in the order of the Deputy Commissioner for reducing the penalty under the provision of Section 80.
2. Heard both sides.
3. I find that in this case the appellants have taken registration in the year 2001 and were liable to pay tax from July 1998. Even after taking the registration default continued for every quarter ranging from one to three months. The appellants have pleaded leniency on the ground that the service tax was paid along with interest at the time of registration and have also referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Sabadra v. Commissioner 2007 (7) STJ 13 (CESTAT-Mum) and C.C.E., Bhopal v. Bharat Security Services & Worker’s Cont. where penalty was held not liable to be imposed under Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme. Appellant in the present case is not covered by the scheme as he has taken registration in 2001 and continued to default after that, whereas under amnestly scheme the assessee have not taken any registration at all under ignorance or otherwise and at the time of registration paid entire tax along with interest. Therefore these decisions are not relevant. However, looking into the circumstances that the major delay has taken place before taking a registration, I reduce the penalty from Rs. 29,052/- to Rs. 10,000/- only.
4. Appeal is partly allowed as above.
(Dictated in Court)